Comments about ‘Letter: Employers' beliefs in comparison to employees' beliefs’

That is in an interesting example. I wonder if anyone can cite any religions
that have that as their doctrine?

So should we get rid of the Bill of
Rights because someone can think of a hypothetical example where it is
inconvenient? A couple of solutios to this dilemma is not to have the
government not get involved in running people's lives. A second possible
solution is to allow for conscientious objectors. They did when there was a
draft. Certain religions, such as the Quakers, believed that killing, even in
wartime was immoral. Draft boards would evaluate requests for applicants
seeking to get a conscientous objector status. We could do the same.

If I have religious beliefs that limit families to two children, can I, as an
employer, refuse to provide insurance for more than those two children
(including anything associated with the conception or pregnancy of any children
beyond the first two)?

A recent study found that women who were given access to contraceptives at no
cost had abortion rates that were reduced by two-thirds compared to the general
population. Abortion rates have already fallen by 30% over the last thirty
years. A further two-thirds reduction would give us an abortion rate 76% lower
than it was in 1980.

Those who are concerned about abortion should
welcome this development.

Contraception is a matter of life and death for the unborn. The government is
not forcing anyone to take contraceptives - yet -, but they are forcing every
company to pay for contraceptives. They're forcing companies to provide
funding to prevent contraception and to pay for the destruction of the unborn if
an employee decides that having a baby after having had sex was not the
"ideal situation".

Why would anyone equate respecting life
with mental illness? Is that the newest tactic being tweeted from the Oval
Office?

And this is why if religious organizations (or individual
believers) want to engage in business or any other civic enterprise, the need to
obey the laws of the land just like everyone else.

As none other
than Antonin Scalia said in deciding a similar SC case:

"To
permit this (religious belief trumping law) would be to make the professed
doctrines of religious belief superior to the laws of the land, and in effect to
permit every citizen to become a law unto himself".

Tekakaromatagi, one of my relatives belongs to a Christian sect that believes
that physical ills are the result of violations of basic biblical principles.
I don't know how they feel about health insurance or medical care, but they
definitely believe that you can cure yourself by aligning your behavior with
God's teachings. Plus I know that many Jehovah's Witnesses will die
before they will let someone give them a blood transfusions.

@ Mike Richards: Contraception, including the morning after pill and the 5 day
after pill prevent pregnancies from occurring by preventing ovulation. Once
fertilization has occurred, these pills are ineffective.

Obama wants companies to do more than stop conception. His
plan is not just to prevent conception from occurring but to destroy the unborn
whenever the "mother" desires, even at the point of birth with late-term
abortions. Is he going to pay for those services? Of course not. He wants the
"rich guy" to pay for it. In this case, that "rich guy" is
anyone who employees anyone else.

Can't you see his plan?
Isn't it clear?

We are here on earth to learn how to control
our appetites and our passions. One of those appetites is sex. Are we so
unable to control thoughts and desires that we let our hormones dictate our
actions? Does anyone "need" a pill to prevent pregnancy, or do they
want the pill so that they don't have to learn self-control?

Children are NOT a curse. They are a blessing. Destroying them after
conception is unthinkable. Preventing them from coming is almost as
unthinkable.

Some think that life is just "party play time".
Our creator had the idea that we needed mortal life to learn to grow up and to
be responsible and to control our bodies.

"What if the employers are Christian
Scientists who believe that the treatment for medical ailments is prayer--not
medicine?"

AnswerKDave

"Employees are not
bound."

Employees are free to choose who they work for.

The real question is:

When did we decide that enslaving employers
was the right and constitutional thing to do? The are being forced to work for
the insurance companies, for health care providers, and especially the drug and
medical equipment providers, and their well paid lobbyists, in many cases
against their will. Doesn't that violate the 13th amendment?

And
when did the right to choose to consume something absolve a person from the need
to pay for what they consume? If you force someone else to pay for what you
consume, you are enslaving the person who pays.

I don't know
why liberals don't get this concept. Earning and buying your own stuff is
freedom. Being forced to work for someone else's stuff is slavery. Getting
the stuff earned by someone else's forced labor makes you a slaveholder.

Maud you are wasting your breath on MR. He posts the same tired arguments no
matter what the discussion. He blames Obama for abortion when the President was
11 years old when the Supreme Court declared abortion legal under certain
circumstances in the USA.

Health Insurance furnished by your
employer was a product of wage and price controls during WWII. It has long ago
outlived its usefulness as this discussion shows in spades. Employers want out
so get rid of it and this conversation goes away with health insurance as we
know it since individual healthcare would be too expensive for all but the top
ten percent or so to afford. Then lets renew the conversation about healthcare.

I can always tell when someone has written a great letter. The repubs come out
of the woodwork and put forth lazy arguments like, "Maybe slavery is what
liberals really want." and "Obama won the election and government now
controls your ability to live according to the dictates of your
conscience."

Thanks for the laughs!

I cannot think of
a better case for a single payer system than the complaints repubs have made
against our current system. Why not go to a single payer system and let
religious employers be free from health care? Why should religions decide which
treatments or services they will provide? Get them out of the health care
business altogether!

With a single payer system members of any
religious denomination can make the personal choices and not have their
employers make it for them.

After Adam and Eve were created the Lord
gave them instructions and choice. He did not take away choice, as repubs
desire.

"Employees are free to choose who they work for."

Where? In your GOP fantasy? Certainly not in the real world. Less choice
and complete economic stagnation. The results of your failed economic policies
feeding the rich while punishing the others.